The Minority in Parliament has accused Attorney-General Dr. Dominic Ayine and Acting Chief Justice Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie of deliberately manipulating the judicial process to facilitate the confirmation of Justice Baffoe-Bonnie as substantive Chief Justice, despite ongoing legal challenges related to the removal of Justice Gertrude Torkornoo.
In a strongly worded statement issued in Accra on Wednesday, November 12, 2025, the Minority Caucus alleged that the Attorney-General has “refused to file defences” in all seven court cases contesting the legality of Justice Torkornoo’s removal.
The Minority contends that such actions undermine the rule of law and compromise the integrity of Ghana’s judiciary. They have called on Parliament to suspend the confirmation process until the pending cases are resolved.
Describing the situation as a “calculated stratagem”, the Caucus argued that delaying judicial proceedings long enough to confirm Justice Baffoe-Bonnie would effectively render the ongoing suits meaningless.
“This cannot be dismissed as mere administrative oversight or bureaucratic inefficiency,” the statement, signed by Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, said.
“The pattern reveals a deliberate strategy—delay judicial determination sufficiently long to install a new Chief Justice, thereby rendering the constitutional challenges academic.”
The Minority also raised concerns over a potential conflict of interest, noting that Justice Baffoe-Bonnie previously presided over the Supreme Court panel that declined to halt Justice Torkornoo’s removal. They argue that he stands to benefit directly from that ruling by being nominated as her successor.
“As Acting Chief Justice, he bears responsibility for the administration of justice, yet none of the pending constitutional cases challenging the removal of Justice Torkornoo have been listed for hearing. No panels have been empanelled, no defences compelled, and no action taken to advance the cases,” the statement read.
“Every day of delay strengthens his candidacy.”
The Caucus warned that proceeding with the vetting under these conditions would compromise judicial ethics, erode public confidence, and make Parliament complicit in institutional manipulation.
“When the head of the Judiciary uses administrative powers to shield himself from scrutiny, the institution’s moral authority collapses,” the statement continued.
“Parliament must not ratify such impropriety.”
Reiterating its call for suspension of the vetting and approval process, the Minority insisted that the issue is one of principle, not partisanship.
“Confirming the nominee under these conditions would erode public trust and violate the constitutional separation of powers,” the statement concluded.
